nineteenth century. As elsewhere in Latin America, the Mexican political landscape was influenced less by

Transcription

1 Antonio López de Santa Anna, a military and political leader who served as president eleven times during the course of his remarkable career, was the central figure in Mexican public life during the second quarter of the nineteenth century. As elsewhere in Latin America, the Mexican political landscape was influenced less by ideology than personality, with caudillos(charismatic, authoritarian leaders) playing a dominant role. An opportunist willing to change allegiances for reasons of political expediency, Santa Anna personified caudillismo in Mexico in the decades following its independence from Spain. Born to middle class criollo parents in Jalapa in 1794, Santa Anna joined the military at age sixteen. Upon the outbreak of the War for Independence he joined the Spanish colonial army, serving under José Joaquín de Arredondo, who in crushed anti-royalist resistance in Texas, foreshadowing Santa Anna's campaign to subdue the region in As the war came to an end in 1821, the ambitious young officer allied himself briefly with Agustín de Iturbide. Soon after Iturbide declared himself Emperor of Mexico he changed sides again, supporting a military junta led by General Guadalupe Victoria. Opposition to military rule in Mexico was strong, however, and in 1824 Congress proclaimed a federalist republic and drafted a constitution influenced by the Philadelphia constitution of 1787 and the Spanish constitution of Bowing to the prevailing political winds of the time, Santa Anna supported the republic during its early years, rising to the rank of brigadier general and serving as governor of the Yucatán. In 1828 he participated in a coup to depose Guadalupe Victoria, the country's first duly elected president, and the following year won a major victory at Tampico against the Spanish, emerging as the republic's most renowned military hero. In 1832 Santa Anna commanded rebel forces in a coup against the conservative President Anastasio Bustamante in a putative attempt to install Manuel Pedraza as president. After forcing Bustamante into exile, Pedraza, now interim president, convened the Mexican Congress in 1833, which elected Santa Anna instead. At the height of his power during the 1830s and 1840s, Santa Anna exhibited a lack of interest in the day-today business of executive leadership. Citing reasons of poor health, but perhaps motivated also by an unwillingness to make unpopular decisions in a volatile political climate, he often retired to his estates in Vera Cruz, leaving his presidential duties in the hands of a subordinate. Such was the case following his election in

2 1833, when Santa Anna turned the reins of power in the capital over to his vice president, Valentín Gómez Farías. The liberal Gómez Farias promptly implemented a series of reforms to tax and in other ways curb the power of the church and the army. At the urging of conservatives, Santa Anna reasserted his authority, issuing in 1834 the Plan of Cuernevaca, which declared the Gómez Farías' reforms null and void. Marching on the capital, he dissolved Congress and sent Gómez Farías into exile. With the support of the Church, the army, and hacendados, the caudillo established a centralist dictatorship, thereby provoking the greatest crisis to the Mexican republic the nation-state had yet faced. Upon taking power, Santa Anna fundamentally altered the federalist Constitution of 1824 with the Siete Leyes(Seven Laws), which replaced the republic's states with "departments" more firmly under the control of the national government. Federalists resisted the changes, and several states rose in revolt, declaring their independence from Mexico City and forming their own governments. In contrast to his lassitude toward civic governance, Santa Anna displayed much more enthusiasm for military leadership. Assuming direct control over the counter-insurrectionary efforts that followed his return to power in the mid-1830s, the Mexican leader crushed a federalist rebellion in Zacatecas, then took charge of the invasion of Texas, where tejano federalists had joined an insurrection of Anglo-American immigrants. After overwhelming the defenders of the Alamo, a former mission in San Antonio, his army was routed at the Battle of San Jacinto in April, Captured, the Mexican president signed the Treaty of Velasco, which granted independence to the Republic of Texas (but was later disavowed by the Mexican government). After a brief exile Santa Anna returned to his estate near Vera Cruz. In 1838, the port city was occupied by a French naval squadron, in response to Mexico's inability to pay claims owed to French citizens. Santa Anna quickly raised a force and marched to the coast, losing his left leg in a skirmish with French troops. However, he adroitly turned his personal loss into a political asset, issuing an emotional open letter to the people of Mexico emphasizing his sacrifices to the nation-state. The outbreak of the U.S. - Mexico War once again found Santa Anna in exile, having been arrested in a military coup in December, Living in Havana, Cuba, the deposed caudillo devised a plan that would allow him to return to Mexico and reclaim his former position as the illustrious hero of the nation. Allying with his former enemy, President Gómez Farías, Santa Anna offered his services to repel the U.S. invasion. At the same

3 time, he sent an emissary to Washington to assure the Polk administration that, if granted safe passage through the U.S. blockade, he would take power and sell Mexico's northern territories for $30 million. Accordingly, Santa Anna arrived in Vera Cruz in August 1836, whereupon he disavowed the agreement with Washington and promptly set about to organize the war effort against the United States. As in the Texas campaign a decade earlier, Santa Anna assumed complete control over military operations, commanding Mexican troops against Zachary Taylor's army in the North at Buena Vista (Angostura), and then in the South, as Winfield Scott marched toward the capital. After the fall of Mexico City, Santa Anna resigned, and would spend the next five years in exile. Invited to return in 1853, the caudillo once again used his support among the nation's military elite to impose authoritarian rule upon Mexico's competing political factions. Overthrown in 1855 amid charges of corruption and public outcry arising from the Gadsden Purchase, by which Mexico sold the Mesilla Valley to the United States for $10 million, Santa Anna fled into exile yet again, his political career finally over. Impoverished, he was allowed to return to Mexico in 1874, and died in Mexico City two years later. The verdict of history has not been kind to Antonio López de Santa Anna. Mexican historians, to a large extent, have reviled him as a corrupt, self-aggrandizing leader who deserves much of the blame for the many problems which beset the republic during its early national period. Moreover, they have accused him of betraying the homeland for surrendering large swaths of territory to the United States. American historians have tended to adopt a similarly negative view, while focusing their attention on his military failures in the 1836 Texas campaign and the war against the United States a decade later. Recent studies, however, have tended to take a more balanced, nuanced interpretation, recognizing both the caudillo's limitations and the manifest challenges-- regionalism, factionalism, racial and caste tensions, to name only a few--which Mexico experienced in the years after Spanish imperial rule.

4 Juan Manuel de Rosas Argentina emerged as a deeply divided nation. One of the main problems that remained unresolved throughout the 19th century was how power would be shared between Buenos Aires, the capital, and the rest of the provinces. Juan Manuel de Rosas, who ruled the country between 1829 and 1852, provided some semblance of order. However, he failed to share power with other groups, and the nation was not able to establish a lasting peace until the early 1860s. Studying this period is significant because it allows us to better understand the reasons for underdevelopment, authoritarianism, and political instability in Argentina's not so distant past and why these problems continue to exist in many parts of Latin America today. A New and Divided Nation After Argentina formally declared its independence from Spain in 1816, partisan wars broke out between two elite factions, Federalists and Unitarians. These groups had vastly different visions for how Argentina should be governed, but these views were based mostly on self-interest rather than ideology. Unitarians promoted the idea of centralizing power into Buenos Aires. They sought to reduce the power of the Catholic Church, which they saw as a symbol of the "colonial past." and they wanted to establish freer domestic and foreign trade. Unitarians also imagined a nation that promoted European-style "progress" and "civilization." This vision of modernization favored European immigrants over Argentina's poorer gaucho (rural itinerant workers) population and caudillos (regional strongmen). During the 1820s, Unitarian governments in control of Buenos Aires attempted to implement their reforms throughout the nation. Opposing these efforts, Federalists emerged as a broad-based group, including ranchers and local merchants, who saw free trade and foreign competition as threats to their economic interests. Federalists tended to favor local political control and viewed Unitarians' political reforms as violations of their sovereignty. Federalists also wanted to maintain the power of the Church as an institution of social control. The Unitarians rejected what they called the "barbarism" of Federalist supporters, including Argentina's poorer gaucho (rural itinerant workers) population and their caudillo (regional strongman) leaders. Throughout the 1820s, Unitarian governments implemented their reforms in Buenos Aires while the rest of the country fiercely resisted these efforts. Political tensions mounted when, in 1826,

5 Unitarians tried to impose a Unitarian constitution over the rest of the country. However, in the following year, the Unitarian government in Buenos Aires resigned under pressure from powerful interests within the interior provinces. Manuel Dorrego, a Federalist, became governor. One of his first acts was to invalidate the Unitarian constitution, but he especially angered Unitarians by establishing peace with Brazil, which had been at war with Argentina since Both countries had been fighting for control of the eastern bank of the River Plate. Unitarians wanted to continue the war in order to add another province to Argentina and to prevent the loss of lands held by wealthy ranchers from Buenos Aires. However, the war was costly, and in late 1828, Dorrego accepted a British-brokered deal, which recognized the creation of a new "Uruguay" as a buffer state between the two countries. Returning from their military campaigns, Unitarian forces overthrew the Federalist government and assassinated Dorrego. The provinces did not accept the Unitarian constitution, and civil war broke out. "The Restorer of the Laws" In response to the discord, different regions of the country experienced the rise of brutally repressive regimes ruled by caudillos, who re-established order. Beginning in 1829, Juan Manuel de Rosas, a wealthy rancher and Federalist, asserted his control over Buenos Aires and the rest of the nation. Supported by a powerful, large land-holding class, Rosas governed through a combination of patronage and state violence. Seen by his supporters as "The Restorer of the Laws," he sanctioned property confiscation, execution, torture, and forced exile against Unitarian suspects and other political enemies. Historians often underscore Rosas's brutality against his foes by pointing to the headings on most official documents: "Long Live the Federation! Death to the Savage Unitarians!" By 1835, Rosas dominated the other provinces, expanded the Indian frontier, awarded land to influential people and loyalists, and exported wool and hides to meet the demands of Western Europe. In 1852, the dictator's reign ended when other Federalists, tired of his meddling in provincial affairs, defeated him at the Battle of Caseros. Youth and the Rosas State The political violence, civil strife, and authoritarianism of the early 19th century deeply affected the daily lives of young people. One consequence was the weakening of powers that fathers, as patriarchs, had within the household. Colonial authorities long recognized the traditional legal concept of patria potestad, whereby absolute authority within

6 families was given to male heads. This meant that patriarchs would have, in theory at least, the last word over their children's life decisions, particularly relating to education, work, and marriage. After independence, however, patriarchal authority began a slow decline. Hundreds of male heads of families were imprisoned, killed, drafted into Unitarian or Federalist armies, or took extended leaves for business or seasonal labor. For middle class and elite families, Argentina's political leaders viewed schools as one of the most important institutions of civil life and social control. The idea was that teachers would aid in the state's efforts to incorporate children into the political system. Indeed, scholars have shown that primary and secondary schools were crucial in educating an entire generation of new Argentine citizens. Thousands of boys and girls were not only taught grammar and arithmetic, but also a deep respect for authority and patriotic values. The Rosas state moved aggressively to employ lower-class youngsters when the wars and civil strife of the early 19th century caused labor shortages, especially in rural areas. Social critics also saw lower-class children as a potential source of social disorder and sought to harness their energies as laborers. Law enforcement officials restricted youngsters' mobility by strictly enforcing passport and anti-vagrancy laws. In towns across Argentina, the conchabo system gave local police broad authority to draft children to work in public works projects, private homes, factories, or wherever laborers were needed. The office typically in charge of placing young workers was called the defensor de menores, a public institution dating back to the colonial period. The defensor drew up labor agreements that tied young people to particular jobs, but these contracts had the unintended effect of giving young people some degree of freedom from parental authority. Argentina's laws also allowed children to be entrusted with decisions related to marriage and property. Girls could marry and hold a dowry at the age of 12. Boys could not marry until they turned 14. This is not to say that parents or their children sought marriage contracts at these early ages. By law, girls and boys had to wait until they were 23 and 25 years old, respectively, before they could marry without permission from their parents. After 1810, however, young people were marrying at younger ages and had more input into selecting spouses. This included choosing mates who were closer to their own ages and sometimes outside their familial socio-economic and racial boundaries. Parents lamented with growing frequency and alarm the rebelliousness of their children and attempted to control their behavior through legal means. Many of these disputes appeared in lawsuits, or disensos, filed by parents asserting their parental rights and obligations in order to guide the behaviors of their children. Sons and daughters also sued their parents, seeking the right to marry freely partners of their own choosing. While these individual actions played out in the courts, authorities under Rosas dealt harshly with youngsters who violated legal and social

7 conventions. In 1847, Camila O'Gorman, the daughter of a prominent merchant, and Ladislao Gutiérrez, a Catholic priest, caused a huge public scandal when they ran away together. The following year, the couple was captured. Rosas personally ordered their execution for violating the social order. According to the dictator, their actions were a direct attack on his authority and that he wanted to make an example out of them. Camila's story is often seen as an example of the extreme measures the Rosas state took to control the behaviors of Argentina's younger population. Indeed, Rosas wanted to make an example out of the young couple. However, this story of forbidden love is also representative of how young people challenged authority as ideas of republicanism, equality, and individualism swept through the Americas. The execution of the young couple (along with the fact that Camila was eight months pregnant at the time of her death!) undermined support for the Rosas regime. Moreover, Camila's story resonates even today as a reminder of the legacy of authoritarianism in Argentina's history. María Luísa Bemberg wrote and directed the feature film, Camila (1984), as a harsh critique of patriarchy and military rule.